Who is in the right here? Cost sharing argument

[JoelyJoe]

I would be very interested in people's opinions on this...

A large group are going on a ski holiday together. Different people are doing car shares to the airport.

Kate and Ben (couple), offer lifts to Gary and Simon (both single). Gary and Simon both have their own cars, and in reality would rather take one of those as Kate and Ben's is a bit ropey. But they don't want to be impolite, and accept the offer. Everyone is sharing costs for petrol and airport parking.

On the way back from the airport after the holiday, the car breaks down. Cue massive hassle, hours of waiting on the motorway for AA pick up. Kate and Ben don't have AA membership so want Gary and Simon to use one of their pick up allowances. They both refuse as they think Kate and Ben should have had their own cover for their car. Kate and Ben then have to pay full, non members price for pick-up, and want Gary and Simon to share the costs.

Again, they refuse, on the grounds that the car could have broken down at any time and it is not their responsibilty to cover their maintenance costs.

Kate is furious and sends an email a few days after the event saying how disappointed she is in them.

Gary and Simon are not budging, saying thay both have perfectly good cars of their own, which they pay to maintain and cover for breakdowns, and they should not be expected to cover Kate and Ben's expenses if they chose not to do this.

Who is right?
YABU - Gary and Simon were in the car, they should share the costs.
YANBU - Kate and Ben are responsible for their own car.

I think couple are in the wrong. If you have a dodgy car, you have cover for it and it's their fault they didn't. That said, if I was a friend I'd have used my AA pick up and/or got friends a discount.
We have AA cover and have never run out of free rescues. Didn't even know that was a thing.

What is a pick up allowance? Could Gary or Simon have got the car recovered for free? Why didn't they?

Why would neither Simon nor Gary use their own memberships to get the group recovered?

Never heard of a pick up allowance

car owners bear the cost of repairs
car passengers if their breakdown membership covers them should have used that. Pretty petty not to do so

If I was Kate and Ben I’d be mortified and apologetic my car broke down and inconvenienced Gary and Simon, not demanding they help pay for it! Kate and Ben are unreasonable.

If Gary or Simon could have used their AA membership at no detriment to themselves then that would’ve been a kind thing to do, but I assume AA membership doesn’t work that way!

Gary and Simon are arseholes for not using their AA membership to help the situation. So I would expect them to contribute - they weren't left at the roadside were they?

They could also have shown some backbone and said no to the car share.

Also Kate and Ben should not be prioritising expensive Ski holidays over keeping their car maintained.

I don't think it's reasonable to demand Gary and Simon pay, but if I'd been a passenger I'd have happily used my breakdown membership. I'm vaguely aware there's a limit on the number of recoveries I can have each year, but I've never worried about it. It's more of a fair use allowance to me, and I've never actually hit it. Most years I don't use the cover at all (touch wood, fingers crossed, etc!).

Ve never heard of a pick up allowance either!

I’m guessing Gary and Simon only get so many pick ups in a 12 month period? I’ve never heard of this but that’s how it reads. Anyway, if my car were to break down when carrying passengers, it would be my bill to sort. My passengers wouldn’t be liable to cover my costs. However if a member of the party could have recovered the car at no cost and no additional penalties on their policy, it’s pretty mean that they didn’t. I once locked my car keys in my car and a completely random man at a garden centre used his aa cover to get someone out to me. But if it had cost him I would have absolutely repaid him for that.

I know my breakdown cover works if I'm a passenger in a car however I'm not AA my mom who is is only covered for her own car.

I'm also wondering at accepting a lift to avoid being impolite, yet refusing to help with recovery which seems like a massive fuck you from two people who are so concerned with manners. Why did neither Simon nor Gary suggest driving one of their well maintained and breakdown-covered cars instead?

Gary or Simon were mean not to use one of their pick up allowances - I can't imagine ever doing that to friends. They accepted the lift knowing the car was "ropey". The couple are right.

Gary and Simon are 100% right. I would refuse too.
They were a bit wet if they only agreed to having a lift so they didn't seem impolite though😅

This really is key to the question. Nobody can say of Gary and Simon were BU without knowing if there was a cost to them or if it was included in their policy to have the other car recovered.

If it wasn't a cost to them they are just being difficult for the sake of it and definitely BU

Just a quick clarification. This actually happened a few years ago (but rears it's head occasionally.. hence why I'm interested in opinions).
Back then basic AA cover only gave you a limited number of call-outs...

They've all chosen to go on what sounds like a fairly expensive holiday, so I don't have sympathy with any of them.

Kate should have had breakdown cover; but in reality there was nothing to stop the other two using theirs or taking their own cars (don't buy the nonsense about not wanting to hurt Kate's feelings).

Moral - don't choose expensive holidays like ski-ing if you're not also prepared to cover or insure against unexpected extra costs.

Gary and Simon are knobs not to use their own AA membership. There is a limit to how many times you can use AA services, but that limit is quite high, and OP says that both of them have newer cars so this shouldn't really be an issue. They were being deliberately difficult.

However, that doesn't mean that they should pay for the costs incurred by the car owners, as it would have broken down no matter who was in it. But it would be nice if they were to offer a contribution, particularly as , reading between the lines the lines, they are better off than the car owners.

The same thing happened to us years ago. We were the ones driving to the airport and our car broke down on the way home. It didn't even occur to us to pass the costs on to the people we gave a lift to. It was our old dodgy car not theirs and I was mortified to have inconvenienced them in the first place.

Don't know what this pick up allowances thing is.

My breakdown cover only starts restricting/wanting further payment if you call them out quite a lot of times in a short space of time. Anyway...

Kate and Ben are responsible for their own vehicle. It broke down. Their responsibility. They sound like cheap ass bastards - they clearly only wanted to give Gary and Simon a lift so that they could get petrol money and parking money from them and reduce the cost that they would have otherwise paid. They achieved this aim. Their car breaking down is their own issue. What utter skanks thinking that they can charge their friends for their car problems.

If Gary and Simon were happy to accept the lift to avoid confrontation how could they then refuse to use a call out (I highly doubt they were both down to their last one!) to help friends? That is so mean and confrontational.

If I'd been the couple I would have left them at the side of the road after that!

But it would have been a call-out included in their policy? G and S were being dicks then. Limited or not they still could have used one of them.

Varying degrees of unreasonableness from all parties here.

Would Gary and Simon have incurred any impact from using their insurance to get the car collected? I know every time I’ve claimed anything on my insurance my premium goes up, so that may be why the resisted.

I also think Kate and Ben are BU to asked their friends to pay for their car breaking down, as it could have happened at any time, and Gary and Simon just happened to be in the car at the time.

Everyone comes out of this badly. The car owners should have cover and net expect help from friends. The friends are stingy whatsits. I'd have used my cover for a friend without even stopping to think. Why didn't one of the blokes with a better car offer to take everyone?

I would have helped by using my AA but I would not be paying towards any costs.

Why, if they knew the car was a bit ropey, did they not suggest to go in one of the other cars which were more reliable?

Gary and Simon should have said from the off they wanted to use their own cars if they did not want to car share

Gary and Simon were also pretty crap in not using one of Thier pick ups. I would not refuse that for a friend who I was with

Katie and Ben should have had their own breakdown...surely that is what ant responsible car owner has as standard?!

I dont think Gary and Simon should be expected to pay towards repair costs of a car that is not theirs but I dont think they sound like friends I would want